Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 4/7] qxl: make qxl_render_update async

[Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>]

  Hi,


> +void qxl_render_update_area_done(PCIQXLDevice *qxl, QXLCookie *cookie)
> +{

This is called from spice server thread context, correct?

> -    for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(dirty); i++) {
> +    for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(data->dirty); i++) {
>          if (qemu_spice_rect_is_empty(dirty+i)) {
>              break;
>          }
> @@ -151,6 +171,7 @@ void qxl_render_update(PCIQXLDevice *qxl)

dpy_update() call here.  Calling that one isn't safe without grabbing
the qemu lock.

>                     dirty[i].right - dirty[i].left,
>                     dirty[i].bottom - dirty[i].top);
>      }

> @@ -145,15 +145,19 @@ void qxl_spice_update_area(PCIQXLDevice *qxl, uint32_t surface_id,
>                             uint32_t clear_dirty_region,
>                             qxl_async_io async, QXLCookie *cookie)
>  {
> +    struct QXLRect *area_copy;
>      if (async == QXL_SYNC) {
>          qxl->ssd.worker->update_area(qxl->ssd.worker, surface_id, area,
>                          dirty_rects, num_dirty_rects, clear_dirty_region);
>      } else {
>  #if SPICE_INTERFACE_QXL_MINOR >= 1
>          if (cookie == NULL) {
> +            area_copy = g_malloc0(sizeof(*area_copy));
> +            memcpy(area_copy, area, sizeof(*area));
> +            area = area_copy;
>              cookie = qxl_cookie_new(QXL_COOKIE_TYPE_IO,
>                                      QXL_IO_UPDATE_AREA_ASYNC,
> -                                    0);
> +                                    (uint64_t)area_copy);

I still think this is the wrong place.

Also: How about making removing QXLCookie->data and adding a union
instead?  It's not like we have to transparently pass through a pointer
for someone else, it's our own state data, so this extra indirection
doesn't make sense at all.

cheers,
  Gerd